IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1597/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BANGALORE. VS. SHRI NARENDRA REDDY THAPPETA, NO.158, PALM MEADOWS, AIRPORT WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE 560 066. PAN : ACKPT 2378J APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, JT. CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2015 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2014 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), LTU, BANGALORE RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.1597/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS T HAT CIT (A) HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT). 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BEFORE US, LD. COU NSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF TH E ACT HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR A. YS. 2006- 07 AND 2006-07. AS PER THE LD. AR, THIS TRIBUNAL H AD UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT (A) WHEREBY IT WAS GIVEN DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF T HE ACT. 4. LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR ALSO, THE CIT (A) HAD FOLLOWED DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR A. YS. 2004- 05 TO 2006-07 AND 2008-09. 5. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT SINCE IT WAS SIMPLY PROVIDING LE GAL SERVICES TO ITS CLIENTS AND NOT DOING ANY TYPE OF BUSINESS MENTIONED IN SEC TION 10A OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE CONTEN TIONS. WE FIND THAT CIT (A) HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRI BUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA.1550/BANG/2010, DT.03.01.2014. RELEVAN T OBSERVATIONS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- ON QUESTION WHETHER THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERE D BY THE ASSESSEE FELL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOF TWARE AS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM AS GIVEN IN SECT.10A AND 80H HE OF THE ACT, WE FIND THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD IN NOTIFICATION NO.SO 890(E) DATED 26.09.2000 IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ITA NO.1597/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AS SESSEE CAN BE CATEGORISED AS PER THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE B OARD AS BANK OFFICE OPERATIONS, DATA PROCESSING, LEGAL DATABASES OR EVEN UNDER REMOTE MAINTENANCE AND THE SAME IS TERMED AS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. THE ASSES SEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DATA PROCESSING FOR LEGAL MATTERS LIKE MAKING PATENT APPLICATIONS, ETC. THE WORK DONE BY THE APPELLANT WILL COME CLEARLY UNDER THE CATEGORY OF DATA PROCESSING BACK OFFICE OPERATION, LEGAL DATA BASE AND REMOTE MAINTENANCE. 7. THUS, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH T HAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE AC T. NOTHING WAS BROUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENT TO WARRANT A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR T HE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) . 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASU DEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH AUGUST, 2015. /D S/ ITA NO.1597/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.